A New "Normal": Time for Japan to Defend Japan

Tokyo plans to take a more active role internationallyâ€”which is good news for Washington. But the time has come for it to do even more.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has begun to transform Japan into a â€œnormalâ€l country. Tokyo plans to take a more active role internationallyâ€”which is good news for America. Indeed, Washington should insist that Tokyo eventually take over responsibility for defending itself and its territorial claims in the surrounding seas.

Many seemingly bright ideas sour quickly, causing one to regret them but once, and that is forever. Such is Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, imposed by America as military occupier after World War II. Washington quickly realized that Tokyo, like Germany, could play a positive military role.

But by then, Japanese officials preferred to hide behind their constitution. Tokyo saw little reason to revisit an extraordinarily good deal that left what became the worldâ€™s second largest economic power protected by its principal competitor. Japan then could focus on economic development.

In recent years, the United States has pushed Japan to do more militarily. A serious internal debate has been percolating at least since the early 1990s, especially after North Korea and China began reminding the Japanese that their land faced potential threats.

So far, Japanese officials have simply revised their interpretation of Article 9. Although it seems to ban any military, Japan deploys a â€œSelf-Defense Force.â€ Over the years, the government has bent the provision to the breaking point, but never clearly violated the nationâ€™s basic law.

Now the Abe government has issued another â€œreinterpretation.â€ However, Japan is not yet a normal country. The Prime Minister noted: â€œThere is no change in the general principle that we cannot send troops overseas.â€

Still, the SDF will be allowed to cooperate with other countries (most obviously America) that come to Japanâ€™s defense. Tokyo also will be able to aid allies under attack and join peacekeeping operations in the name of â€œcollective self-defense.â€ These are important steps forward, even though the change would be small for other nations. Yet the â€œreinterpretationâ€ requires only cabinet and parliamentary approval, not constitutional revision.

The controversial move triggered public protests. One man set himself on fire in response. The Abe plan may have contributed to the ruling partyâ€™s election loss in a provincial governorâ€™s race. The Diet must change numerous laws to implement the change, and Prime Minister Abe indicated that he planned to go slow: â€œUnfortunately, we cannot say that public is fully supportive.â€

Overseas the response was mixed. The PRC predictably was unhappy. A government spokesman said: â€œChina opposes the Japanese fabricating the China threat to promote its domestic political agenda.â€ The Republic of Korea explained it was â€œpaying sharp attention toâ€ the policy. Seoul also called on Japan to win its neighborsâ€™ confidence and insisted that Japanese forces would have to be invited in for any â€œcollectiveâ€ mission.

Other nationsâ€”in a break from the pastâ€”were supportive. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott endorsed the move. So did the Philippines, which earlier welcomed Tokyo taking a more active military role in response to Beijingâ€™s aggressive ocean maneuvers. Singapore also offered public support, while most ASEAN states and India were favorably inclined, if more private in their reactions. In fact, Japan recently announced that it was giving six ships to Vietnam for use in coast guard and fisheries operations.

The United States was pleased. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel explained: â€œThis decision is an important step for Japan as it seeks to make a greater contribution to regional and global peace and security.â€